Whether the Court of Appeals denying Piper's 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for a Certificate of Appealability reasons were correct

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the Court of Appeals denying Piper's 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for a Certificate of Appealability reasons were correct. It states that "Because Piper does not challenge the finding that his 2255 motion was untimely, he waived review of the determination. (see Court of Appeals order). : Piper is a.pro-se petitioner and when applying for a COA Piper thought he was challenging the district court's dismissal of his 2255 motion as untimely. (see Court of Appeals order). Whether the prisoner (Piper) demonstrated that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the (motion) states a valid claim of the denial of a Constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling" (see 2255 motion,+== Response to show cause, and ~~-Reply to government's response regarding untimely 2255 motion). Miller v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003). The Court of Appeals failed to rule on whether Piper was eligible | for equitable tolling. | Does the AEDPA create a constitutionally violative procedural } deadline impeding access to the court using the statutory | mechanism under 18 U.S.C. § 22557 | | | | ts it